TexasCHLforum.com

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

suthdj wrote:

TrueFlog wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

suthdj wrote:

GrillKing wrote:

suthdj wrote:How I look at it, he may have signed all the gun bills in front of him, that is easy he just signs what they hand him. Now for him to not do something when he has the power that is failure on his part and the only way I have to punish him is by voting against him, See so simple. Yes this may make some upset because it is against what they want but that is why or system is so great we can voice our displeasure at the ballot box.

And that is exactly how Bill White (or similar) would become the next Governor of Texas.

Then maybe Perry should have stepped up to the plate when he was called.

You'd rather have proven anti-gun former Houston Mayor Bill White as Governor?

Chas.

But, of course, that's a false dichotomy. I've seen several posts lately saying that would should continue to support Perry because he's not anti-gun, he's not as bad as White, etc. But that's simply not true - we're not limited to choosing between Perry and White. There are plenty of other candidates we can support - particularly those whith Tea Party or Libertarian views. Perry was challenged in the primaries last time around, and I'm sure he will be again. We can rally together behind someone like Medina or Abott. Can you imagine what would happen if the TSRA endorsed someone other than Perry in a primary and was up-fornt about why? Perry might still win, but at least he'd know that he can't run on past victories forever. The same holds true for the Lt. Governor and legislative offices.

Yep

Then you are an enemy of the Second Amendment and Texas gun owners.

Chas.

BTW my "yep" was to what truefrog said not what you said.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

suthdj wrote:

TrueFlog wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

suthdj wrote:

GrillKing wrote:

suthdj wrote:How I look at it, he may have signed all the gun bills in front of him, that is easy he just signs what they hand him. Now for him to not do something when he has the power that is failure on his part and the only way I have to punish him is by voting against him, See so simple. Yes this may make some upset because it is against what they want but that is why or system is so great we can voice our displeasure at the ballot box.

And that is exactly how Bill White (or similar) would become the next Governor of Texas.

Then maybe Perry should have stepped up to the plate when he was called.

You'd rather have proven anti-gun former Houston Mayor Bill White as Governor?

Chas.

But, of course, that's a false dichotomy. I've seen several posts lately saying that would should continue to support Perry because he's not anti-gun, he's not as bad as White, etc. But that's simply not true - we're not limited to choosing between Perry and White. There are plenty of other candidates we can support - particularly those whith Tea Party or Libertarian views. Perry was challenged in the primaries last time around, and I'm sure he will be again. We can rally together behind someone like Medina or Abott. Can you imagine what would happen if the TSRA endorsed someone other than Perry in a primary and was up-fornt about why? Perry might still win, but at least he'd know that he can't run on past victories forever. The same holds true for the Lt. Governor and legislative offices.

Yep

Then you are an enemy of the Second Amendment and Texas gun owners.

Chas.

Do you care to back up that personal attack? Can you explain to me why I'm an enemy? Is it because I think we can do better than Perry or because I questioned your almighty wisdom?

Maybe more democrats should be elected who aren't against the Second Amendment as well? Relying on one party is not the best idea (all your eggs in one basket).

Cedar Park Dad wrote:Maybe more democrats should be elected who aren't against the Second Amendment as well? Relying on one party is not the best idea (all your eggs in one basket).

no thank you, the Dem's can claim they believe in the 2nd amendment all they want, the bottom line is that they will do what the party tells them to do and the damage they would do to Texas on every other issue will take generations to fix. Every session anti-gun bills are filed by Dem's, elect more and let them grab the majority and they will become reality, I am not willing to even consider such a move and anybody who thinks that voting in more Dem's will help the pro-gun movement should look at all the anti gun laws that they have pushed across this country. Where would you like to start? New York, CT, Colorado?

Historically Texas was a Democratic state. It was a Democratic state in my lifetime and will be so again.
Historically the Second Amendment was not the purview of a specific party. None of the Bill of Rights were. To reduce it to a party specific concept makes it vulnerable.

Cedar Park Dad wrote:Maybe more democrats should be elected who aren't against the Second Amendment as well? Relying on one party is not the best idea (all your eggs in one basket).

I disagree with the Progressives/Democrats on many more issues than just 2A and guns. I'm not saying I wouldn't vote for a democrat but I doubt I would find one that would agree with me on enough issues to warrant my vote.

For me it is not a party issue. My votes are based on the issues (economics, religious freedom, freedom, Constitution, sanctity of life, foreign policy, budget/debt, defense of nation etc.) character, integrity, trust, values and principles.

Cedar Park Dad wrote:Historically Texas was a Democratic state. It was a Democratic state in my lifetime and will be so again.
Historically the Second Amendment was not the purview of a specific party. None of the Bill of Rights were. To reduce it to a party specific concept makes it vulnerable.

If you think that the Democrat Party, in this state or any other, cares one little bit about the Second Amendment, you are very sadly mistaken at best. They are now direct enemies of the Second Amendment, as well as the right to self-defense, the historical record is now irrelevant. If this state goes Democrat, it will end up just like the Socialist Peoples' Workers Paradise of Kalifornia. I lived there for ten years at the behest of our Uncle Sam, as I stated in an earlier post, and as Republican power waned, so too did any respect for the Second Amendment or firearms ownership, or for self-defense. I'm not saying every Republican in office is hard-core about 2A or self-defense (Joe Straus, cough cough), but as a PARTY, Republicans are for it FAR more than against it. I'm not sure why you want to give any respect to the Democrats concerning the Second Amendment, but it is most certainly unwarranted, I assure you.

Why do you think the Republican Party cares one whit? Parties only care about votes and power. To believe otherwise is not strategically prudent.

Cedar Park Dad wrote:Why do you think the Republican Party cares one whit? Parties only care about votes and power. To believe otherwise is not strategically prudent.

I hear what you are saying. I still don't think it is a "party" issue. Thinking of Joe Straus and how Governor Perry didn't proactively address pro gun initiatives and now Manchin aligning himself with Biden and Bloomberg. Democrat or Republican, I just don't agree that it is a party thing. It comes down to the individual putting principle over personal gain/profit.

mojo84 wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:Why do you think the Republican Party cares one whit? Parties only care about votes and power. To believe otherwise is not strategically prudent.

I hear what you are saying. I still don't think it is a "party" issue. Thinking of Joe Straus and how Governor Perry didn't proactively address pro gun initiatives and now Manchin aligning himself with Biden and Bloomberg. Democrat or Republican, I just don't agree that it is a party thing. It comes down to the individual putting principle over personal gain/profit.

Now if we can make principle and personal gain allies, all legislation can be passed.

Cedar Park Dad wrote:Why do you think the Republican Party cares one whit? Parties only care about votes and power. To believe otherwise is not strategically prudent.

I agree completely. There are hard core 2A positions on each side of the ledger. However these are the minority in both parties. The largest number in both partys go's where the wind blows and the money flows. My guess is the marjority of self proclaimed republicans or democrats could really give one whit about the 2nd amendment.

I have a young friend who trys to maintain his faith in the "one person, one vote" concept. He has to be reminded regularly that the vote with the biggest check behind it wins every time.

The biggest thing that must be fixed, if we are to return our country to greatness, is political financing. I sometimes wonder what would happen if everyone stopped contributing to big money Pac's and all financing for local elections had to come solely from the voters in the affected city, county, state.

There I go dreaming again.

TrueFlog, it comes down to the reality of politics. Exactly how many times has a lesser known, third-party candidate succeeded in winning a major office in the United States when running against a big name for one of the two major parties? Sure, there are probably better candidates out there for governor than Perry. I've never really cared for him much as a person myself, but he's done a relatively good job as a conservative governor. However the alternatives aren't to be played around with.

There are really two scenarios. One, you get someone that can take Perry's place in the republican ticket. In that scenario, you take "Joe Smith" republican candidate for governor and run him against a bigger name from the democrat party, there is a possibility he will loose. The demographics of this state are changing and the democrat party is throwing mountains of cash into it to try and swing the state blue and destroy all hope of a two-party system in the United States. If we are going to replace Perry, we need a strong candidate to do so and to do it in a way that unites the republican base.

The second (and more likely) scenario is that you have a third party candidate that is a really good guy (independent, libertarian, whatever) that runs. This creates a problem because you have a majority of republican voters who are either low information (although still more informed than most dems) or who vote party line that will stick with punching the republican candidates ticket. On the other hand, the third-party candidate draws the support of many of the staunch values-voters away from the republican ticket. This splits the vote and allows the democrats to win the election. Splitting the vote is an old tactic and has been used before to weaken an otherwise strong party. In fact, the opposition will throw money at a third party candidate discretely so that they have a better chance of splitting the republican vote.

I'm all for getting the best candidate for 2nd amendment rights and conservative values in every office. However, it has to be done smartly with recognition of the opposition. If Texas falls to the democrats at some point in the future, this country is in a world of hurt. If blue, the size of Texas' electoral and House influence would guarantee a democratic president and a likely democrat House majority from that point forward. So much for a multi-party, self-limiting government as envisioned by the founders.

--NEB

2firfun50 wrote:I sometimes wonder what would happen if everyone stopped contributing to big money Pac's and all financing for local elections had to come solely from the voters in the affected city, county, state.

There I go dreaming again.

I like that idea.

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

2firfun50 wrote:I sometimes wonder what would happen if everyone stopped contributing to big money Pac's and all financing for local elections had to come solely from the voters in the affected city, county, state.

There I go dreaming again.

I like that idea.

They would set up local POBox offices in the area and go from there.

K.Mooneyham wrote:
If you think that the Democrat Party, in this state or any other, cares one little bit about the Second Amendment, you are very sadly mistaken at best. They are now direct enemies of the Second Amendment, as well as the right to self-defense, the historical record is now irrelevant. If this state goes Democrat, it will end up just like the Socialist Peoples' Workers Paradise of Kalifornia. I lived there for ten years at the behest of our Uncle Sam, as I stated in an earlier post, and as Republican power waned, so too did any respect for the Second Amendment or firearms ownership, or for self-defense. I'm not saying every Republican in office is hard-core about 2A or self-defense (Joe Straus, cough cough), but as a PARTY, Republicans are for it FAR more than against it. I'm not sure why you want to give any respect to the Democrats concerning the Second Amendment, but it is most certainly unwarranted, I assure you.

There is a lot of truth in this post. Though I am younger, I witnessed the same slide in California. I see no signs of things improving there.

Being relatively new to Texas, I can appreciate just how much better we have it here in a variety of issues. I noticed in this last legislative session that while Texas gun owners were carefully tracking how much we could gain, California gun owners were tracking in painful detail how much they were going to lose. That is not a small distinction and if we are not careful to guard against it, we may find ourselves in the same situation one day.

We cannot control the past and how we got to where we are but we can control the direction we head in the future. I will gladly take small gains over losses every legislative session because that means we are not losing anything.